The surge didn't stop the violence, a time line isn't radical and comparing the U.S. to Iraq?

[ProSense]

There was never anything ‘radical’ about a withdrawal timeline

Posted July 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm

The Washington Post’s Dana Priest is a great reporter. Her work on the scandalous treatment of recovering veterans at Walter Reed earner her a well-deserved Pulitzer.

But once in a while, a newspaper will ask a reporter to take on assignments that aren’t especially well suited to the journalist’s strengths. Last week, for example, the WaPo had Priest doing an online Q&A with readers, fielding election-related questions.

Q: Sen. Obama’s and Sen. McCain’s positions seem closer than ever on Iraq. The differences seem to be between a two-year withdrawal plan and a four-year withdrawal plan, though U.S. planning could be rendered moot by Iraqi government demands for a withdrawal. What, then, is the point of all the talk of “differences” on Iraq — a war for which the most kinetic aspects are essentially over, as all major insurgent groups have been dealt severe blows and there has not been any sign of the civil war-type violence that typified 2006? Will Iraq end up being a major election issue? And if it is not, whom does that benefit?

Dana Priest: Well, Obama started out more radical and, as we have seen, is moving to the center. My bet would be that McCain drops his surge idea — too difficult to pull off right now — and both candidate will end up with positions that are even more similar. Iraq will become less and less of a major election issue as this happens (except the left will disown Obama as they have begun to do. But they have no where else to go (exception Nader, like I said) so it won’t matter.

Tim Fernholz noted that “this kind of analysis is ridiculous” and “almost nothing in that paragraph is right.”

And he’s right. The problem is that Dana Priest probably doesn’t know anything about electoral politics, and has no idea what she’s talking about here. I’m not necessarily blaming her for that — this isn’t her beat.

But the Post had her fielding questions like these anyway, which was a mistake, and she answered them foolishly, which was an even bigger mistake.

Watching it all fall apart at once

Posted July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Matt Yglesias had a very good item this morning, noting the “debacle” for the Republican approach to foreign policy.

(McCain had) spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the “progress” in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.

But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he’d been right all along! That’s about as close to “game, set, match” as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What’s more, given the domestic situation and John McCain’s inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can’t afford to play for a draw on Iraq.

Quite right. David Kurtz added how surprised he is to see “just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks.” Kurtz noted that it’s “hard to think of any recent historical parallels.”

Fox’s Brian Kilmeade: ‘There’s just as many convoy attacks in America as there are in Iraq.’

Apparently in Kilmeade’s America, he wouldn’t be surprised to see something like this in downtown Columbus, OH:

Civilian deaths from violence in 2007

Analysis of the year’s toll from the Iraq Body Count project

<...>

Year Civilians Killed
2003 10,077 – 12,010
2004 9,741 – 10,573
2005 13,071 – 14,324
2006 25,699 – 27,519
2007 22,586 – 24,159

<...>

Further key features of the 2007 civilian death toll:

• The most violent 12-month period in Iraq’s recent history extended from July 2006 to June 2007, with 29,625 to 31,852 civilian deaths recorded.
  
• Trends from mid-2007 onwards show monthly violence levels on the decrease.
  
• Since March 2007 every month has seen more civilian deaths outside Baghdad than inside it. This has never happened before.
  
• Per-capita,3 the five most violent governorates in Iraq during 2007 were:
  
  
  1. Diyala, at 255 violent civilian deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (up 29% from 197/100k in 2006)
     
  2. Baghdad, at 164/100k (down 39% from 267/100k)
     
  3. Anbar, at 122/100k (up 61% from 76/100k) 4
     
  4. Salah al-Din, at 120/100k (up 26% from 95/100k)
     
  5. Ninewa, at 100/100k (up 143% from 41/100k)
  
  
• Overall, Iraq’s 2007 civilian death rate from violence related to the invasion was 89/100k in 2007, down from 101/100k in 2006. For comparison, the 2006 homicide rate for the USA was around 5/100k (which does not, of course, experience incidents as disruptive to civilian security as car bombs in shopping precincts).
  
  
• The first 8 months of 2007 saw the most massive vehicle bomb-based attacks in Iraq’s history, and occurring with greater frequency than ever. There were 20 bomb attacks killing over 50 (in one case, over 500) civilians in 2007, compared to 12 in 2006 and 17 in all of 2003 to 2005. However, there have been no further vehicle bomb attacks of this scale since August 2007.

more

Kerry: "What about now? Are you ready now or will it take another thousand?" (July 2007)

[ProSense]

1. Heather Wilson (R-Tool) claims "100 years" McCain might pull troops from Iraq before Obama

McCain Surrogate: He Might Withdraw From Iraq Sooner Than Obama!

Is anyone taking these people (and McCain's campaign) seriously?

[zbdent]

2. every time someone tries to compare the soldiers' death rate to a major U.S. city,

(murder rate)

I point out that the true comparison would be to compare the soldiers' death rate to that of the number of deaths (on the job) of POLICE personnel ... since the U.S. soldiers are there essentially as, ahem, "the world's policemen" (something Bush chided Clinton for in 1999-2000).

Somehow, if there were over 4000 police killed in the line of duty in the US, I would think that at least one news agency would be declaring it an epidemic ... Faux would certainly be saying it was because of Bill Clinton or Nancy Pelosi ... and the rest of the "news" outlets would be echoing the talking points ...

[ProSense]

3. Countdown BOMBSHELL!!!! "Mr McGOO thinks that it was the SURGE that led to the Sunni Awakening. "

Countdown BOMBSHELL!!!!:

Yes that is right , Mr McGOO thinks that it was the SURGE that led to the Sunni Awakening. I am not a history major, but I do recall that the Anbar awakening began in 2006.

[ProSense]

4. Excellent updates at this link. n/t